9.. .3 o 3‘ «t v Q .. ...-» In! .“ .‘f‘ K N i1 “7. 51;" 'L .... \ a. .t o . I. 4" Em’r'ff. LL-‘iiu x i 1‘). r. z... x»... ”Mn“. 3 . q. a 2 and a? {If h THE HLSULHS 0H HHHLICIDL AHD CULTURAL TP“ATISNN 0H HLL- D COHTHOL AND TI JYIELD 0H CHLHLLHHY, NAVY HHD HIDHLY BEANS By Lawrence Eugene Foote Submitted to the College of Agriculture Kichigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of EASTE R OF SCILVCE Department of Farm Crops 1959 Approved. \i Hfl/C fr1aft-‘a:4/_.k‘Fi ABSTRACT Twelve different chemical and cultural weed control treatments were applied to cranberry, navy and kidney field beans. Kloben, Neburon, CIPC and DNBP treat— ments generally failed to control weeds at the applica- tion rates used and produced reduced yields. The rotary hoe and post-emergence shield treatments produced inter— mediate results. CDAA and EPTC treatments generally had fair weed control with yields equal to the checks. CDAA showed some bean plant injury but plants recovered. The untreated check plots received three cultivations; weed control was fair and yields were equal to any of the other treatments. No direct differences were observed as the re- sult of the use of the different types of beans. Under weather conditions favorable to both beans and weeds, competition from the bean plants reduced weed pOpulations about 50 per cent. Nut grass was less competitive than other weeds under the climatic conditions encountered. Comparisons of high and low yielding plots showed bean plant, broadleaved weed and grassy weed pOpulations to be factors in yield. Yield and total weed population showed an inverse relationship for all treatments. THE RESULTS OF HERBICIDE AND CULTURAL T”EATKENTS ON WEED CONTROL AND THE YIELD OF GRAN EREY, NAVY AND KIDNEY BEIIS By Lawrence Eugene Foote A THESIS Submitted to the College of Agriculture Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Farm Crops TABLE OF INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE. . . . MATERIALS AND METHODS . . . RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. . . Cranberry Bean Trials. Navy Bean Trials . . . Kidney Bean Trials . . CONTENTS Competition of Bean Types and Weeds. Effectiveness of Chemical and Cultural ments . . . . . . . . SLTIJEij-ARY O O O O O O O O O O BIBLIOGRAPHY 0 O O O O O O 0 page 12 13 24 34 4o 47 53 55 Table 10. ll. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Chemical treatments used, amount of chemical used, form in which applied, and type of cover- age used 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Climatic data. Daily temperature high—lows plus rainfall in inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average visual ratings of all treatments for cranberry, navy and kidney beans . . . . . . . . Spring weeds counts-given as percentage of checks—for the cranberry type beans. . . . . . . mature weeds present at harvest time-given as a percentage of the checks. Cranberry bean type . Yield results in bushels per acre, as percentage of checks, plus average number of bean plants harvested per plot. Cranberry type trials . . . Spring weed counts as percentage of checks for the navy bean plots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mature weeds present at harvest time as a per- centage of the checks. Navy bean type . . . . . Yield results for navy pea beans in bushels per acre, as percentage of checks, plus average num- ber of bean plants as a percentage of the checks Spring weed population counts as percentage of checks for the kidney beans. . . . . . . . . . . Mature weeds present at harvest time as a per— centage of the checks. Kidney bean type . . . . Yield results for kidney beans in bushels per acre, as percentage of checks, plus average num- ber of bean plants as a percentage of the checks Effects of competition of bean plants on weed pOpulations in the row. Averages of twelve Page 7 l4 17 18 22 25 27 30 32 35 37 39 LIST OF TABLES (continued) 14. counts each, of row and middle, for cranberry and kidney types and of 24 counts each for navy type C O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 41 Results of comparisons of highest and lowest yielding plots of all treatments as to weed pop- ulations of the different types and bean plants present. Averages of 13 cases each for the cranberries and of 16 cases each for the navy pea and kidney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure I. Figure 2. Figure 3. LIST OF FIGURES Page EPTC 3 pounds per acre—band—granular treatment on cranberry beans . . . . . . . l6 DNBP 3 pounds per acre full—coverage treatment on cranberry beans . . . . . . . 16 A Effect of weed and bean plant populations on yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere appre— ciation to his advisor, Professor Boyd Churchill, who suggested these experiments. Professor Churchill's help- ful criticism, patient encouragement and considerate aid while assisting the author in this problem were of great benefit. Thanks are also expressed to Dr. Steve Dexter, who assisted in the preparation of the thesis manuscript. To my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Foote, and my landlady, Mrs. Burt Green, many thanks for your en- couragement and kind understanding. The willing assistance and helpful suggestions of John Showers and Dick Gingerich were greatly appreci- ated. THE RESULTS OF HERBICIDE AND CULTURAL TREATMENTS ON WEED CONTROL AND THE YIELD OF CRANBERRY,NAVY AND KIDNEY BEANS INTRODUCTION Field beans “is one of the leading crops in Michigan. One of the largest problems involved in bean culture is weed control. In the past, mechanical methods have been the most successful in.controlling weeds. How- ever, the farmer may be prevented from cultivating when it is most needed by rainy weather, wet ground or the pressing needs of other work. Cultivating at the wrong time may injure the bean plants or increase the spread of disease in the bean fields. In recent years chemical weed control has had considerable publicity. However, adOption of chemical weed control practices in bean culture has been rather slow. This has been due to (l) uncertainties involved in the use of the chemicals, (2) the constant introduc— tion of new and untried chemicals, (3) the cost of the chemicals, and (4) the cost of equipment for application of the chemicals. This research was conducted to evaluate certain chemicals, and ways of application for field control of weeds. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Antognini et al (1) found thatEPTC at the rate of 4 pounds per acre gave good seasonal control of yellow nut grass in snap and field beans. They (2) also found that a disc, spike tooth harrow or rototiller gave ex— cellent results when used to incorporate EPTC into the soil prior to seeding. Collins (3) in Eastern Canada, using EPTC at the rates of 6 and 8 pounds per acre, con- trolled smartweed and rough pigweed in snap beans without injury to the bean plants. Dabbs and Forsberg (4) had good early season control on rough pigweed and shepherds purse using EPTC at 5 pounds per acre. There was no in- jury to the bean plants. Dawson and Bruns (5) used EPTC at 6 and 9 pounds per acre, resulting in excellent season- long control of annual grasses and broadleaved weeds. Yields of beans were equal to weed free checks. EPTC at 3 pounds per acre gave good but not complete control. Furtick (6) in work on yellow nut grass, found indication that EPTC could be used for selectively controlling this weed in crops such as field beans. Sailak (13) found that EPTC at 5 and 10 pounds per acre, effectively con- trolled nut grass in beans. Sexsmith (14) used EPTC at 4 and 6 pound per acre rates. Greenfoxtail was 80 per cent controlled without injury to beans. Szabo and Gould (17) applied both liquid and granular EPTC at the rates of l, 2, 4, and 6 pounds per acre as a pre-emergence treat- ment on pinto beans. Weed control ranged from 61 per cent at the 1 pound rate to 90 per cent at the 6 pound rate, for the liquid and 45 per cent to 89 per cent for the granular. In all cases reported above, the researchers applied the chemical on the surface and worked it into the soil, before planting the crop. Hemphill (7) used DNBP at 4 pounds per acre and CDAA at 8 pounds per acre on green beans. Resulting yields of green beans were equal to the untreated plots. Weed control was satisfactory. Marshall, Bayer and Rob- inson (8) found that hot dry weather following applica- tion caused DNBP to be inadequate. However, the use of CDAA resulted in good weed control without injury when applied to red kidney beans. Noll and Odland (9) by band applications of CIPC on lima beans increased yield with good weed control. They also increased weed control with- out bean plant injury, using DNBP. Noll and Odland (10) used pre-emergence band spraying on lima beans. The re- sults showed significant increases in both yield and weed control on the treated plots with the chemicals they used. Noll (11) using DNBP and neburon at 4 and 6 pound per acre rates on lima beans, had good weed control and in— creased yields which were significant at the one per cent level. Rahn (12) found that when seeding and treatment were followed by a period of hot weather and then a heavy rain, DNBP was likely to be first volatilized and then leached, resulting in poor weed control. Singletary and Herron (15) in pre-emergence treatments on lima and snap beans, using DNBP at 4 pounds per acre and CIPC at 6 pounds per acre, had good results as to weed control and yield. The DNBP treatment was the highest yielding treatment. Wilson and Bruner (18) used shields over rows of snap beans and sprayed with fuel oil. Results were good weed control without much injury to the bean plants in most cases. Staniforth and Weber (16) found that weeds re- duced soybean yields 10 per cent. Foxtail reduced yield less than broadleaved weeds. Greater bean yield reduc— tions were associated with adequate early season moisture and subsequent greater weed growth. MATERIALS AND METHODS Field tests in this study were conducted during the spring and summer of 1959 on the "Farm Crops Depart- ment" farm at East Lansing, Michigan. The soil in the area used was conover loam. Three types of beans, cranberry, navy pea and kidney were seeded with a 2-row tractor mounted planter. The ground was in excellent condition at planting time. The seed used was of the untreated commercial type. The fertilizer used was 5-20—20 at the rate of 150 pounds per acre in the row. The cranberry beans were planted on June 4th at the rate of 60 pounds to the acre. Liquid chemical treatments were applied in the evening of the same day to avoid wind drift. The granular bands were applied on the 6th of June. The navy pea beans (Sanilac variety) were planted on the 10th of June at the rate of 30 pounds of seed to the acre. Liquid chemical treatments were applied the evening of June 11th and the granular treatments were applied on the 12th. The kidney beans were planted on the 17th of June at the rate of 80 pounds of seed to the acre. Liquid spray treatments were applied the evening of the 18th and the granular treatments on the 19th. The treatments used are given in table 1. The liquid broadcast treatments were applied with a power- boom type sprayer mounted on a "Cub" tractor. The liquid band treatments were applied with a hand knapsack type Sprayer. The granular bands were applied with a hand, "Gandy", spreader. The band granular treatments were 14 inches wide. The liquid bands were 9 inches wide. All band treatments were placed directly over the row. EPTC treatments were incorporated into the soil; the broadcast ones with a tractor mounted spike—tooth harrow and the band treatments with a wooden hand-rake. The one post-emergence treatment was applied with the knapsack sprayer. A metal shield was fixed to the hand spray boom. The shield was suspended over the bean row. Spray nozzles on each side of the shield were left Open. The plots were 32 feet long and four rows wide, randomized and replicated four times on each type of bean. Rows were 28 inches apart. Spring weed population counts were taken. A welded metal frame 20.5 inches by 7 inches, equaling one square foot was used. In the case of broadcast treatments, Table 1. Chemical treatments used, amount of chemical used, form in which applied, and type of coverage used. Name of Amount of Form in Coverage chemical chemical used which used per acre applied Checks (no chemical treat- ment) none - — Rotary hoe none - - DNBP "Premerge" Dinitro-o- sec-butylphenol 53% Alkanolamine salts of the ethanol & isopre- panol series 3/lb. liquid full CDAA a—chloro-N-N—diallya- cetamide 4/lb. liquid full Kloben active ingredient Neburon ((l-n-butyl- 3-(3,4-dichloro henyl) -l-methylureal) 50% 2/lb. liquid full EPTC "Eptam", ethyl di-n— '___- propylthiolcarbamate 2/lb. liquid full p293 3/11) . liquid full EPTC 3/lb. granular band EPTC 3/lb. liquid band EPTC Plus "Dow General" 1-1/2 pounds per acre post-emergence-shield spray, It is Dinitro- -0-sec-butylphenol 55% 3/1b. liquid band CIPC Isopro yl-n—(3 chloro- phenylfi carbamete 6/lb. liquid full Neburon ((l-n—butyl-B-(3,4- dichlorophenyl)-l- 4 methylureal) % 2/lb. granular band *CDAA 20% 4/lb. granular band *CIPC 20% 6/lb. granular band *Treatments made on kidney beans only. the frame was placed crosswise of the row. For the band treatments, the frame was placed length-wise over the row and after the weed count was taken it was moved to the middle of the row, directly beside it and another count taken. Weeds were pulled as counted. 1 Three categories were used in classifying the weeds counted. They were (1) broadleaved, (2) annual grasses and (3) nut grass. The separate class was used for nut—grass due to its irregular distribution. Three counts were taken in each plot. In the case of the band treatments 5 counts were taken of the row and 3 of the middles. Row and middle counts were also taken on the checks. The weed count data are presented on the basis of weeds per square yard. Weed counts were started in the cranberry beans on June 29th and finished by July 2nd. Counts in the navy pea beans were started on the 29th of June and fin- ished by the 6th of July. Counts were taken in the kidney beans from July 2 to July 9th. The major broadleaved weed present was Amaran- thus retroflexus (rough pigweed). It occurred in large numbers in all three types of beans with very heavy in- festation in the kidney bean plots. The major grassy weeds were Echinachloa crus- galli L., (barnyard grass), Digitaria sanguinalis L., (crab grass), Panicum capillare L., (tickle grass), Se- taria lutescen L., (yellow foxtail), and Setaria viridis L. (green foxtail). The foxtails were the most numerous but the greatest growth was made by the barnyard grass which reached heights as high as five feet. Cyperus es- culentus L., (yellow nut grass) was the species of this plant found. It occurred in locally heavy infestations in some plots of the cranberry and navy beans but in only minor numbers in the kidney bean plots. Rotary hoe treatments were applied with a trac- tor—mounted pick-up—type rotary hoe. Treatments were applied on June 18th to the cranberry beans, on June 23rd to the navy beans and on July 2nd to the kidney bean plots. Cultivation was carried out with a one row cul— tivator mounted on a "Cub" tractor. It had been planned to cultivate the checks three times, the band treatments twice and the full coverage treatments once. However, the cultivation of the cranberry beans was delayed by wet weather. The cranberries all received their first cultivation between June 30 and July 2nd. All plots ex- cept the ones that were to receive the post—shield spray were cultivated. It was thought necessary to do this because of the large size of both the weeds and the bean plants. The cranberry beans received their last culti- vation on July 8th. 10 The navy beans checks were cultivated on July 2nd, the checks and band treatments on the 8th of July and all treatments of the navy pea type were cultivated on July 16th. The kidney bean checks were cultivated on July 3rd, the checks and band treatments on the 8th of July and all treatments on the 16th of July. The post-emergence shield treatment was applied to the cranberry and navy pea bean plots on the 3rd of July and to the kidney bean plots on the 8th of July. Visual ratings were taken of all the plots. A rating of l was assigned to a plot if no weeds were present and a rating of 10 to a plot if no beans were visible because of weeds. Visual ratings were taken because it was thought that numbers of weeds alone might not prove to be an ade- quate index of the harm caused. This was because the weeds had grown very large and rank in some of the plots with reduced weed pOpulations. An area 15-1/2 feet long of the two center rows of each plot was harvested by hand pulling. The harvested area was equal to one 600th of an acre. The beans were placed in gunnysacks and put in a drier at a temperature of about 88 degrees for about 36 hours. 11 At the same time the beans were pulled, counts were taken of the number of bean plants pulled, the num- ber of broadleaved weeds present in the 600th of an acre area as well as the numbers of grassy weeds and nut grass present. Weed population counts results for both the spring and fall are presented as a percentage of the dif- ferent types and total weeds present in the checks. Treat— ments which showed 70 per cent or less weeds than the checks were considered to be at least partly effective. Treatments which had a 110 per cent or more weeds than the check were considered ineffective. Judgment was re- served on treatments which showed from 70 to a 110 per cent as many weeds as the checks. The beans were threshed with an experimental plot thresher. Yields, in bushels per acre were calcu- lated from the weight of cleaned seed from each plot. The average yield of the four plots, of each treatment, was then obtained. Differences between mean yields necessary for significance are given for bushels per acre at the 5% level and 1% level of significance. Any difference less than the R.E. value (Range of Equality) may be considered not significant at that level. Any difference greater than the R.E. value may be considered significant at that level. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Tables: Table 2 presents the climatic data. All visual ratings are presented in table 3. The spring and harvest time weed populations along with the yields of the cranberry bean treatments are presented in tables 4-5 and 6. The same data for the navy bean trials are presented in tables 7-8 and 9; and for the kidney bean treatments in tables 10-11 and 12. The effects of com- petition of bean plants on weed populations are presented in table 13. Table 14 in the results of the comparisons of high and low yielding plots of all bean types and chem- ical treatments. Weedgpopulations: The soil of the area used for all three types of beans in these trials had a very heavy infestation of weed seed. The period of hot dry weather before, (table 2), and of cool dry weather after planting of the navy beans may have favored the growth of the grassy weeds. This would help account for the high amount of these weeds in the navy bean trials, (tables 4-5-7-8—10-11). Nut grass is generally known as a "wet soil weed". The long dry period before and after the planting of the kidneys and the lateness of the season 12 l3 could account for the lack of this weed in the kidney bean trials, (tables lO-ll). Bean types: No direct effect due to the use of different types of beans was observed. There was a very definite indirect effect. Each type of bean encoun- tered a different set of climatic factors and a different part of the growing season; when the bean and weed plants were in the critical seedling stage. The climatic fac- tors and the period of the growing season could account for the three different types of weed populations, the disease factor in the navy type and also the insect dam- age from the Mexican bean beetle which occurred in the cranberry beans. At least some of the chemical treatments behaved differently under the different climatic condi- tions that prevailed for each type of bean. These chemi- cals were DNBP, CDAA, and EPTC in the granular form. Cranberry Bean Trials Cranberry bean plots: Four of the cranberry plots were discarded because of planter failure. Five more of the cranberry bean plots were discarded because of severe injury resulting from residual effects of sima— zine application on corn which had been in the field the year before. In no case was more than one plot of any one treatment discarded. 14 Table 2. Climatic data. Daily temperature high-lows plus rainfall in inches. Temperature taken at Lansing Airport. Rainfall at Farm Crops Farm, East Lansing, Mich— igan. Date Temperature Rain Date Temperature Rain high low high low June 1 68 51 .75 19 79 45 - 2 69 44 - 20 82 53 - 3 80 46 - 21 84 46 _ 4 81 51 - 22 74 55 .14 5 83 56 - 23 73 47 - 6 78 56 - 24 81 57 - 7 86 58 - 25 87 64 .36 8 88 64 - 26 89 68 .01 9 88 64 - 27 . 91 72 .14 10 87 63 - 28 92 74 - ll 80 65 - 29 89 62 - 12 84 61 .36 3O 75 55 .64 13 65 47 - Average 80 54.8 Total 2.4 14 72 39 - 15 73 46 - Average temperature for June 67.4 16 77 47 — high 77.1 18 73 45 - Average rain for June 3.4 Average temperature for June, 1959 67.4 15 The cranberry bean plots showed a more balanced weed population than either the navy bean area or the kidney bean field. Weed control measures were more vis— ible. (Figures 1 and 2). Visual ratings: EPTC treatments had the four best ratings in the cranberry beans (table 3). CDAA rated fifth. The checks and the rotary hoe treatments rated the same. CIPC, DNBP, Kloben, Neburon and the 2 pound per acre rate of EPTC had ratings that were poorer than the check. The visual ratings were best for all treat— ments in the cranberry beans. In two cases with the cranberry bean trials, weeds were few but very large at harvest. One was the rotary hoe treatment which had a visual rating equal to the check, considerably less total weeds but yielded less than the check (tables 3-5-6). The other was EPTC at 3 pound-per—acre—full-coverage which had a better visual rating than the check, more weeds and yielded the most of any treatment. Spring weed populations: Table 4 shows the results of spring weed population counts as a per cent of the check plot averages. The checks had a total of 116 weeds per square yard. Though this is a very high l6 Figure l. EPTC 3 pounds per acre band-granular treatment on cranberry beans. Note good weed control. The visual rating of this plot was 2. The plot yielded 51.5 bushels of beans per acre. Figure 2. 16 A DNBP 3 pounds per acre full-coverage treatment on cranberry beans. This plot had a visual rating of 9; beans are barely visible in fore- ground. The yield was 18 bushels per acre. Table 3. 17 cranberry, navy and kidney beans. Average visual ratings of all treatments for Name of Average rating Average rating Average treatment cranberry beans navy beans rating kidngy beans Checks 4 7.3 4.8 Rotary hoe 4 6.8 5.3 DNBP 3/lb/a. 5 8.8 7.8 full-coverage CDAA 4/1b/a. 5.7 8.3 4.8 full-coverage Kloben 2/1b/a. 6.3 9.3 7.8 full-coverage EPTC 2/1b/a. 5.5 6 5 full-coverage EPTC 3/1b/a. 3.3 4.8 3.8 full-coverage EPTC 3/lb/a. 5 9.5 5.5 band-granular EPTC 3/lb/a. 2.8 8.5 4 band—liquid EPTC 3/lb/a. 5.5 7.5 4.8 band-liquid post-shield CIPC 6/lb/a. 5.8 8.3 6.5 full-coverage Neburon 2/lb/a. 5 9.3 6 band-granular CDAA 4/1b/a. 4.5 band-granular CIPC 6/lb/a. 4.8 band-granular 18 Table 4. Spring weeds counts-given as per cent of checks— for the cranberry type beans. Name of Broadleaved Grassy Nut grass Total weeds treatment per cent of weeds per cent per cent of checks per cent of checks checks of checks Checks (actual count per sq. yd.) 42 47 27 116 Checks-band weeds in row as per cent of weeds in middles 59 66 50 56 Rotary hoe 92 7O 36 70 DNBP 60 68 242 110 CDAA 45 30 ll 30 Kloben 125 103 333 162 EPTC 2/1b/a. 59 103 242 130 full-coverage EPTC 3/1b/a. 45 68 44 54 full-coverage CIPC 6/lb/a. 157. 119 25 111 full-coverage EPTC 3/lb/a. 51 52 27 4o band-granular EPTC 3/lb/a. 54 88 52 55 band-liquid Neburon 2/lb/a. 105 111 106 109 band-granular 19 weed population, it was the lowest number per square yard of check in any of the three types of beans used. Grassy weeds were the most numerous weed type in the checks. EPTC 3 pounds per acre-liquid-band treatment showed the best control of the broadleaved weeds. It was followed by (2) EPTC 3 pounds per acre-full—coverage, (3) CDAA and (4) EPTC 3 pounds per acre-granular—band, all of which had less than 60 per cent as many broadleaved weeds as the checks. EPTC showed the best control of broadleaved weeds in the spring. CIPC, along with Kloben showed no control of broadleaved weeds. CDAA gave the best control of annual grasses, having only 30 per cent as many as the checks. It was followed by (2) EPTC 3-pounds—per-acre-granular—band and (3-4) DNBP and EPTC 3-pounds-per-acre-full—coverage. It is noteworthy that EPTC had two of the treatments which showed control. CIPC and Neburon showed a lack of control. CDAA gave the best control of nut grass having only 11 per cent as many as the checks. Other treatments showing some control were (2) CIPC, (3) EPTC 3-pounds— per-acre-band-granular, (4) rotary hoe, (5) EPTC 3—pounds— per—acre-full-coverage, and (6) EPTC 3-pounds-per-acre- liquid-band. Kloben, DNBP and EPTC 2-pounds—per—acre— full-coverage showed a lack of control. 20 As to over-all control CDAA had the best results with 70 per cent less weeds than the check. Other treat- ments which had considerably less weeds than the checks were (2) EPTC 3-pounds—per-acre-granular-band, (3) EPTC 3-pound-per—acre-full—coverage, (4) EPTC 3-pound-per-acre- liquid-band, and (5) the rotary hoe. Kloben, CIPC, and EPTC 2-pound-per-acre-full-coverage showed no control. The weather (table 2), following treatment of the cranberry bean plots, was hot and dry. This was favor- able for volatilization of the DNBP. However, it showed some control of both the broadleaved weeds and the grassy ones to the time of the spring population counts. But it showed a lack of control at harvest time. It is hard to eXplain why the spring weed popu- lations of the Kloben and neburon treatments were higher than the check. All weed pOpulation counts of the cran- berry bean trials were taken within two days'time of each other. Weed counts were taken using only the two center rows of each plot. No counts were taken over the area that had been compacted by the tractor wheels. All CDAA 4 pounds-per—acre-full-coverage plots in both the cranberry and navy bean trials showed con- siderable injury and burning to the bean plants in the early stages of growth. However, recovery was fast. 21 Also in at least the case of the navy bean plots recovery of the weeds was rapid. Nature weedgpopulation at harvest: At harvest time the weeds present in the harvested area (600th of an acre) were counted, (table 5). The checks averaged 28 weeds per 600th-acre or 3.5 weeds per square yard. The percentage of broadleaved weeds in the check had drOpped from 36 per cent in the spring counts to 19 per cent at harvest time. The drop in broadleaved weeds re- sulted in a higher relative percentage of grassy weeds in the checks at pulling time. By fall no treatment showed any real control of broadleaved weeds. Only two treatments, EPTC 3-pounds- per-acre-liquid-band at 86 per cent of check and EPTC 3-pounds-per-acre—liquid-band-post-shield at 88 per cent of the check had less broadleaves than the untreated plots. The least amount of grassy weeds were found in the EPTC 3-pound—acre—band—liquid treatment followed by the EPTC 3-pound-acre-band-granular, (3) the rotary hoe, (4) CDAA and (5) EPTC 3-pound-per-acre-band—liquid-post- shield; all of which had at least 30 per cent less grassy weeds than the check. Kloben, CIPC, and DNBP did not control annual grasses. CDAA treatments had the least nut grass in the 22 Table 5. Mature weeds present at harvest time-given as a percentage of the checks. Cranberry bean type. Type of Broadleaved Grassy weeds Nut grass Total treatment weeds-per per cent of per cent weeds cent of checks of chams per cent checks of checks Chedmkactual 45 15 8 28 count for 600th/a. Rotary hoe 175 51 25 67 DNBP 3/1b/a. 131 156 188 160 full—coverage CDAA 4/lb/a. 115 67 17 61 full-coverage Kloben 2/1b/a. 188 198 178 191 full-coverage EPTC 2/lb/a. 406 96 100 155 full-coverage EPTC 3/lb/a. 125 69 171 108 full-coverage CIPC 6/lb/a. 197 145 78 155 full-coverage EPTC 3/lb/a. 152 47 95 76 band-granular EPTC 3/lb/a. 86 58 22 42 band—liquid EPTC 3/1b/a. 88 98 65 86 band—liquid— post-shield Neburon 2/lb/a. 125 118 54 95 band-granular 23 fall, as in the spring counts. Others with minor amounts of nut grass in the fall were (2) EPTC 3-pound-per-acre- band-liquid, (3) rotary hoe, (4) neburon, (5) EPTC 3—pounds- per-acre-band-liquid-post—shield, DNBP, Kloben, and EPTC 3—pound—full-coverage had high populations of nut grass. EPTC 3—pounds—per-acre—band—liquid, CDAA, and the rotary hoe treatments all had more than 30 per cent less total weeds than the check. CIPC, DNBP, ETPC 2- pound-per-acre-full—coverage, and Kloben all failed, in general, to control weeds. There is a possible explanation for the large relative increase from spring to fall, of broadleaved weeds in the EPTC 2-pounds—per-acre-full-coverage plots, (tables 4-5). All EPTC plots showed many stunted weeds. In the case of this smaller application recovery may have been faster and more complete. Also there may have been many germinated weed seed present which due to the stunt- ing effect had not appeared yet. The rains came about the time of the weed counting in the spring, (table 2), and could have leached the chemical. EPTC 3 pounds-per- acre-band-granular showed somewhat the same results though not as large a change. In no case was any injury to the bean plants observed as a result of the EPTC treatments. Yield results: Five treatments yielded as much 24 or more than the check. They were CDAA, and all the EPTC treatments which used the 3 pounds-per—acre rate. All the rest yielded at least 10 per cent less and two treat- ments yielded over 20 per cent less. They were CIPC and Kloben. No trend could be established involving the number of bean plants harvested per plot as a percentage of the number harvested from the check plots. Spring weed count ratings, fall weed ratings and yield showed close relationship for five treatments; DNBP, CDAA, Klo- ben, EPTC 2 pounds-per-acre-full-coverage, and EPTC 3 pounds-per—acre—band-liquid—post-shie1d. In general all cranberry bean plots were high yielding. Navy Bean Trials Navy bean plots: All navy bean plots had a very weedy appearance at harvest time. The bean plants became infected with root rot quite early and were un- healthy in appearance up to the time they became obscured by the weeds. The disease factor may have caused the bean plants to be much less competitive and helped con- tribute to the high weed infestation. In observation of pulled bean plants from the alleyways at the time spring weed populations were taken, it appeared that about seven 25 Table 6. Yield results in bushels per acre, as percentage of check, plus average number of bean plants harvested per plot. Cranberry type trials.* Type of Yield actual Yield as a Number of plants treatment in bu/acre per cent of harvested as a per check cent of check Check actual 42.8 100.0 95 count Rotary hoe 35.3 82.4 105 DNBP 3/1b/a. 55.1 81.9 101 full—coverage Kloben 2/1b/a. 32.6 76.2 98 full-coverage CDAA 4/1b/a. 45.2 100.9 98 full-coverage EPTC 2/lb/a. 54.2 80.1 108 full-coverage EPTC 3/lb/a. 44.5 105.5 97 full-coverage CIPC 6/lb/a. 30.8 71.3 91 full-coverage EPTC 3/lb/a. 42.2 98.9 99 band-granular EPTC 3/lb/a. 40.5 94.6 90 band-liquid EPTC 3/1b/a. 43.0 100.5 100 band-liquid post-shield Neburon 2/lb/a. 54.7 81.2 108 band-granular *No significant difference. This was partly due to the large number of discarded plots which decreased the number of replications. 26 out of ten plants were infected with the root rot. Even at harvest time the effect of the disease was apparent in the lack of roots on the pulled plants. Visual ratings: The visual ratings of the navy beans were the poorest for all treatments when compared to the other types of beans. Only one treatment received a rating that was even fairly clean; it was EPTC 3—pounds— per—acre-full—coverage. Three treatments received ratings of over nine, which was very poor. This denotes the fact that in these plots no bean plants were visible at a cas- ual glance. The treatments which ranked 1—2 in the visual rating also ranked 1-2 as to yield, (tables 3-9). They did not always rank this way as to weed populations, (tables 7-8). Spring weedgpopulations: The spring weed popu- lation counts in the navy beans showed the most control by the chemical treatments in relation to the checks, (tables 4-7-10). All treatments had less total weeds and less broadleaved weeds than the untreated plots. The weather, (table 2), following treatment was cooler and so more favorable and chemicals showed better results on broadleaved weeds at this time, (table 7). The EPTC 27 Table 7. Spring weed counts as percentage of check for the navy bean plots. Type of Broadleaved Grassy Nut Grass Total weeds treatment weeds—per weeds- per cent per cent of cent of per cent of checks checks checks of checks Check-actual 131 107 69 307 count per sq. yard Check-row 86 89 60 236 actual count per sq. yard Rotary hoe 50 59 76 61 DNBP 3/1b/a. 56 84 20 49 full-coverage CDAA 4/lb/a. 70 62 98 72 full-coverage Kloben 2/1b/a. 61 164 54 88 full-coverage EPTC 2/lb/a. 52 66 63 61 full—coverage EPTC 3/lb/a. 40 27 70 42 full-coverage CIPC 6/1b/a. 54 78 154 81 full-coverage EPTC 3/1b/a. 62 40 45 49 band-granular EPTC 3/1b/a. 79 81 66 77 band-liquid Neburon 2/lb/a. 74 129 60 91 band-granular 28 treatments all showed at least some control of nut grass at this time. The check had an average population of all weed types totaling 307 per square yard. Broadleaved weeds numbering 131 were the most numerous. Counts in the check rows had a total average population of 236 per square yard of row, (a band 7 inches across). DNBP with 36 per cent of the check broadleaved weeds and EPTC 3 pounds-per-acre-full-coverage with 40 ' per cent, gave considerably the best control of this type of weed. Eight of the ten treatments reduced the broad- leaved weed population by 30 per cent or more. EPTC 3 pounds-per-acre-full-coverage and EPTC 3 pounds-per-acre-band-granular, showed the most control over grassy weeds. Five treatments showed at least 30 per cent reduction in grassy weeds. Two treatments, K10- ben and Neburon showed a complete lack of control for this type of weed. Seven treatments showed a 30 per cent or more reduction in nut grass as compared to the checks. CIPC gave no control of nut grass. EPTC 3 pounds-per—acre-full-coverage at 42 per cent followed by (2-3) DNBP and EPTC 3 pounds-band-granu- lar with 49 Per cent of the check, showed the most control 29 of the total weed population. Two other treatments re- duced total weed p0pulation by more than 35 per cent. They were EPTC 2 pounds-per-acre-full-coverage and the rotary hoe. All treatments showed some reduction in total weed population over the checks. This was the only weed population count in all the trials where all the treat- ments had lower weed numbers. Mature weed populations at harvest: Table 8 shows that total weeds in the checks were reduced to 6.2 weeds per square yard which is still quite a high popula- tion. EPTC 3 pounds-per-acre-full—coverage and EPTC 3 pounds-per-acre-band-liquid-post—shield were the only treatments which had less broadleaved weeds than the check. EPTC 3 pounds—per-acre—fu11—coverage was the only treatment with less grassy weeds than the check. Treatments with more than a 35 per cent reduc- tion of nut grass were DNBP, EPTC 3 pounds-per—acre-band- liquid and Kloben. The check had the least total weeds, followed by (2) EPTC 3 pounds-per-acre-full—coverage, (3) rotary hoe, and (4) EPTC 2 pounds—per-acre-full-coverage. All other treatments had over 150 per cent more total weeds than the check. 30 Table 8.Mature weeds present at harvest time as a percent— agei of the check. Navy pea bean type. Type of Broadleaved Grassy Nut grass Total weeds treatment weeds per weeds per per cent per cent of cent of cent of of checks checks checks checks Checks-actual 12.3 21.3 16.3 count per 600th/acre Rotary hoe 120 129 109 121 DNBP 3/lb/a. 157 295 65 180 full-coverage CDAA 4/lb/a. 218 152 158 164 full-coverage Kloben 2/lb/a. 218 326 26 202 full-coverage EPTC 2/1b/a. 159 126 137 139 full-coverage ' EPTC 3/1b/a. 78 87 160 111 full-coverage CIPC 6/lb/a. 216 241 252 238 full—coverage EPTC 3/lb/a. 192 209 82 165 band-granular EPTC 3/lb/a. 216 285 65 198 band-liquid EPTC 3/lb/a. 82 174 125 156 band-liquid post-shield Neburon 2/1b/a. 159 319 103 209 band-granular 31 The fact that all treatments on the navy beans showed more weeds in the fall than the check can best be accounted for by the early cultivation which the checks received and the other treatments did not receive. This cultivation undoubtedly buried many small Jeeds. Yields: In general the yields of the navy beans were low. This was due to the high weed p0pu1ation present and to a heavy infestation of root rot in this type of bean. The check yielded 22.6 bushels per acre, (table 9), and was the third highest yielding treatment. The first, second, fourth and fifth yielding treatments all had more bean plants than the check. Of the six lower yielding treatments only one had more plants than the check. There was a ten per cent drop in yield from the fifth highest yielding treatments to the sixth highest. The lower bean plant p0pulation, in the lower yielding plots could have been caused by a combination of the disease factor, the dry weather and the heavy weed competition. This could have caused the death of some bean plants. Two treatments, EPTC 3-pounds-per—acre-full- coverage and EPTC 2 pounds—per-acre-full-coverage yielded as much or more than the check. Both of these treatments had a higher bean plant and total weed pOpulation than 32 Table 9. Yield results for navy pea beans in bushels per acre, as percentage of check, plus average number of bean plants as a percentage of the check.* Type of Yield actual Yield as Number of plants treatment in bu/acre a per cent harvested as a of check per cent of check Check—actual 22.6 123 count Rotary hoe 20.3 90.1 106 DNBP 3/1b/a. 15.5 68.9 95 full—coverage CDAA 4/1b/a. 16.5 72.5 104 full-coverage Kloben 2/1b/a. 12.4 55.1 97 full-coverage EPTC 2/lb/a. 24.1 106.7 112 full-coverage EPTC 3/1b/a. 27.7 122.2 107 full-coverage CIPC 6/lb/a. 17.8 79.5 96 full-coverage EPTC 3/lb/a. 15.3 67.9 95 band-granular EPTC 3/lb/a. 16.8 74.6 96 band-liquid EPTC 3/lb/a. 22.1 98 109 band-liquid post-shield Neburon 2/lb/a. 12.8 57 97 band-granular *R.E. 5% R.E. 1% 6.7 bushels. 8.9 bushels. 33 the check. EPTC(2 pound rate)had more of all three sep— arate types of weeds than the check. However, EPTC 3 pounds-per-acre—full—coverage had less broadleaved and grassy weeds than the check but many more nut grasses. Its yield increase of 122 per cent of the check equals 5.1 more bushels per acre. Four treatments yielded less than 70 per cent of the check. They were DNBP, EPTC 3 pound-per-acre—band-granular, Kloben and Neburon. These four treatments had very high infestations of annual grasses. In general, treatments which had low populations of nut grass had high populations of other weeds and treat- ments which had lower p0pu1ations of other weeds had higher p0pu1ations of nut grass. Nut grass did not seem to stand the competition from the high p0pu1ations of other weeds. This was not true for CIPC and CDAA treatments, both of which had high populations of all three weed types, (table 9). DNBP had shown good control of nut grass and broadleaved weeds in the spring counts, (table 7), but by harvest time it had the second heaviest infestation of grassy weeds and was the fourth lowest yielding treatment, (tables 8—9). None of the band treatments which received two cultivations yielded very well in these trials, (table 9). 34 Kidney Bean Trials Visual ratings: For visual ratings of the kid- ney bean plots, see table 3. The kidney beans contained a heavy infestation of "rough pigweed". There were few grassy weeds and only minor numbers of nut grass. The three best ratings were EPTC treatments. DNBP and Kloben had by far the poorest ratings. The visual ratings were better for all treatments than in the navy beans and poorer than in the cranberry beans. Spring weed populations: Broadleaved weeds out—numbered the other weeds combined by more than two to one in the kidney beans. The checks had a total popu— lation of 159 weeds per square yard, (table 10). EPTC treatments gave the best control of the broadleaved weeds. DNBP, CIPC, Kloben and Neburon again showed no control. CDAA, EPTC, CIPC and the rotary hoe treatments had more than 35 per cent less grassy weeds than the check. Neburon again showed a lack of control. Nut grass numbers were so minor as to be of no importance in the kidney bean trials. EPTC, 3 pounds-band-granular, ranked first as to control of total weeds with only 23 per cent as many as the checks. This was the only granular treatment to 35 Table 10. Spring weed population counts as percentage of checksfor the kidney beans. Type of Broadleaved Grassy Nut grass Total weeds treatment weeds per weeds per cent per cent of cent of per cent of checks checks checks of checks Checkyactual 116 41 1.5 159 count per sq. yard Checks-row 131 ~ 170 actual count per sq.gyd. Rotary hoe 100 64 200 92 DNBP 3/lb/a. 115 87 400 110 full-coverage CDAA 4/lb/a. 87 17 200 69 full-coverage Kloben 2/lb/a. 150 104 400 126 full-coverage EPTC 2/lb/a. 95 26 — 78 full-coverage EPTC 3/1b/a. 66 29 100 57 full-coverage CIPC 6/1b/a. 152 55 2.5* 106 full-coverage EPTC 3/lb/a. 22 21 2.5* 25 band—granular - EPTC 3/1b/a. 40 110 3* 61 band-liquid Neburon 2/lb/a. 123 183 6.3* 172 band-granular CDAA 4/lb/a. 76 49 5* 75 band-granular CIPC 6/1b/a. 80 75 - 78 band—granular *Equals actual count. 36 rank first in any trial. Other treatments which had less than 70% of the weeds in the checks were the 3 pounds-per- acre rates of EPTC and the CDAA liquid-full-coverage. Kloben and Neburon gave no control. DNBP proved ineffect- ive as the temperature was higher and there was some rain, (table 2), following treatment. Nature weed populations at harvest: These weed p0pu1ation count results are presented in table 10. The checks had the third lowest broadleaved weed population and a total weed p0pu1ation of 2.5 per square yard. Only two treatments had less broadleaved weeds at harvest time than the checl. They were EPTC 3 pound—per-acre-band- granular (58 per cent of check) and EPTC 3 pounds-per- acre-band-liquid (81 per cent of check). All other treat- ments had more than 110 per cent as many broadleaved weeds as the checks. EPTC and CDAA treatments showed reductions of more than 30 per cent from the grassy weeds of the checks. Neburon and Kloben had more grassy weeds than the check. EPTC 3 pounds—per—acre-band—granular gave by far the best total weed control in the kidney plots. It had 38 per cent as many total weeds as the checks. No other treatment reduced the total weed p0pu1ation by as much as 30 per cent. Nine treatments had over 115 37 Table 11. Nature weeds present at harvest time as a per cent of the checks. Kidney bean type. Type of Broadleaved Grassy Nut grass Total weeds treatment weeds per weeds par per cent per cent of cent of cent of of checks checks checks checks Check-actual ll 9 -0 20 count per 600th/acre Rotary hoe 133 100 .8* 122 DNBP 3/lb/a. 451 94 1.8* 297 full-coverage CDAA 4/lb/a. 121 8 .5* 72 full-coverage Kloben 2/lb/a. 349 226 1.5* 292 full coverage EPTC 2/lb/a. 174 44 0.0 115 full-coverage EPTC 3/1b/a. 152 8 0.0 86 full-coverage CIPC 6/lb/a. 268 25 0.0 157 full-coverage EPTC 3/lb/a. 58 8 .5* 58 band-granular EPTC 3/lb/a. 81 67 2.5* 86 band-liquid EPTC 3/lb/a. 256 28 2.8* 166 band-liquid post-shield Neburon 2/lb/a. 119 155 1.5* 145 band—granular -CDAA 4/lb/a. 114 55 0.0 86 band-granular CIPC 6/1b/a. 148 8 0.0 150 band-granular *Equals actual count. 38 per cent as many total weeds as the check. When the two full coverage treatments for CDAA and EPTC 3 pounds—per-acre are compared with the two band treatments of CDAA and EPTC liquid-band, no effect from the extra cultivation on the band treatments can be found, (tables ll—12). Effects of the lack of chemical weed control and the lack of early cultivations combined were clearly visible in the kidney plots for the rough pigweeds stood in large rows just like the beans. Yields: Yield results of the chemical weed control trials on the kidney beans are presented in table 12. All treatments which had lower weed populations at harvest time yielded more than the check. These treat— ments also had less weeds in the spring population counts. There did not seem to be any trend with regard to the number of bean plants present and the yield. EPTC 3 pounds-p8r—acre-band-granular had the highest yield which was 5.6 bushels per acre more than the check. Of all the trials, this was the only treatment that had the highest yield, combined with the best visual rating and lowest weed counts for all types of weeds. Kloben, DNBP and CIPC 6 pounds-per-full-coverage all yielded less than 75 per cent as much as the check. All other treatments yielded within 7 per cent above or below the check except Neburon which was 14 per cent below the check. 39 Table 12. Yield results for kidney beans in bushels per acre, as percentage of check, plus average number of bean plants as a percentage of the check.* Type of Yield actual Yield as Number of plants treatment in bu/acre a per'centharvested as a of check ‘per cent of check Check-actual count 26.3 - 81 Rotary hoe 26 98.9 100 DNBP 3/1b/a. 14.5 54.2 94 full-coverage CDAA 4/lb/a. 27.5 104.6 99 full-coverage Kloben 2/1b/a. 17.5 66.4 88 full-coverage EPTC 2/1b/a. 25.7 96.5 98 full-coverage EPTC 3/1b/a. 27.5 105 95 full-coverage CIPC 6/lb/a. 19.7 74.9 94 full-coverage EPTC 3/lb/a. 51.9 121.1 104 band-granular EPTC 3/1b/a. 27.7 105.1 106 band-liquid EPTC 3/lb/a. 24.4 92.9 105 band-liquid post-shield Neburon 2/1b/a. 25.4 86 99 full-coverage CDAA 4/lb/a. 27.7 105.5 96 band-granular CIPC 6/lb/a. 25.1 95.4 92 band-granular *R.E. 5% = 10.3 bushels. R.E. 1% 13.5 bushels. 40 Competition of Bean Types and Weeds Effects of soil moisture, rainfall and bean plant competition on weedgpopulations in the bean row as compared to the row middles: Results of the weed p0pulation counts of the rows and the row middles are presented in table 13. The effects of the cranberry and the navy bean plants were very similar. However, the results in the kidney beans were much different. This difference can best be explained on the basis of soil moisture and rainfall. On June let there was .75 inches of rain. This assured abundant soil moisture to germinate the weed seed present on the cranberry bean plots. No rain fell from the let until the 12th of June. 0n the 12th, two days after the navy beans were planted, a timely rain of .36 inches fell. This assured moisture for germination of both bean and weed seed. No amount of rain then fell until the 25th of June. By this time the soil was dry and considerable rain was needed to wet and firm the soil enough for germi- nation of the weed seed to occur in the row middles. However, the rows were firmed at planting time by the planter shoes and press wheels so weed seed germination in the kidney bean rows was higher than in the row middles. At the time weed counts in the kidney beans were taken, 41 Table 13. Effects of competition of bean plants on weed p0pu1ations in the row. Averages of twelve counts each, of row and middle, for cranberry and kidney types and of 24 counts each for navy type. Type of weed Number weeds Number weeds Weeds in row per sq. yd. per sq. yd. as a percent— in row in middles age of weeds in middles For cranberry beans Nut grass 43 87 50 Broadleaved weeds 19 32 59 Grassy weeds 26 39 65 Total weeds 88 168 52 For navy beans Nut grass 46 119 39 Broadleaved weeds 69 141 49 Grassy weeds 113 170 67 Total weeds 229 430 53 For kidney beans Nut grass 0 1.5 - Broadleaved weeds 131 102 128 Grassy weeds 39 44 90 Total weeds 170 146 116 42 the weed seedlings in the row middles were just starting to appear but by this time the weeds in the bean plant rows had already made considerable growth. No weed counts were taken in the area compacted by the tractor wheels, however it was observed that there appeared to be more weeds in these areas than in the uncompacted row middles. Bean plant competition in the cranberry and navy bean rows reduced weed numbers by about 50 per cent. Nut grass was the most reduced in numbers and grassy weeds the least. Nut grass is known as a "wet soil" weed. In the cranberry bean plots there was abundant soil moisture, at planting time, so the nut grass became well established before the dry period. Nut grass was somewhat more re— duced in numbers in the navy bean rows. Here it did not become so well established before the dry period and had to compete with higher p0pu1ations of both bean plants and weeds for the limited moisture. The dry period before and after planting of the kidney beans accounts for the lack of nut grass in this bean type. Under more moist conditions than those encountered in these trials nut grass might prove to be a stronger competitor. Results of comparison of highpyielding plots and low_yie1dingdplots: Results of comparisons of the 43 high yielding and the low yielding plots are presented in table 14. In all three types of beans the highest yielding plots had the most bean plants. The high yield- ing plots had a bean plant p0pu1ation 9.8 per cent higher than did the low yielding plots in the case of navy beans; 9.2 per cent more for the kidneys; and 7.7 per cent more for the cranberry beans. In all cases the high yielding plots had less broadleaved weeds, less grassy weeds and less total weeds per square yard than the low yielding plots. In both the cranberry type and the kidney type the amount of nut grass was also reduced. In the navy beans the high yielding plots had more nut grass than the low yielding plots. This is probably due to the bean and nut grass plants being of a less competitive nature in regard to each other than in regard to the other weeds. Neither nut grass nor navy bean plants could compete with the heavy broadleaved and grassy weed infestations. The difference between the average yield of the high plots and the average yield of the low plots was over 10 bushels per acre for all three types of beans. Comparison of the one-third highest yielding plots with the 1/3 lowest resulted in more definite con- clusions as to the effect of weed and bean plant popula- tion than did the comparison of the different treatments, 44 Table 14. Results of comparisons of highest and lowest yielding plots of all treatments as to weed populations of the different types and bean plants present. Averages of 13 cases each for the cranberries and of 16 cases each for the navy pea and kidney.beans. Comparison Cranberry Navy pea Kidney Highest low yield used 32.2 14.9 19.2 Lowest high yield used 41.7 21.2 27.5 Average plants 600th/acre 89 119 75 low yield Average plants 600th/acre 97 132 83 high yield Difference 8 l3 8 Average broadleaved weeds per 1.3 3.1 4.9 sq. yd. low yield High yield .8 1.8 .8 Difference .5 1.3 4.1 Average grassy weeds per sq. 2.6 7.6 .9 yd. low yield ' High yield ‘ 1.1 3.1 .6 Difference 1.5 4.5 .3 Average nut grass per sq. yd. 1.1 l .2 low yield High yield .9 3 .1 Difference .2 -2 .1 Average total weeds per sq. yd. 5 11.7 6 low yield High yield 2.8 7.9 1.5 Difference 2.2 3.8 4.5 45 (tables 6-9—12). The plots which were high or lowwhryield came from nine or more weed control treatments. The kid- ney beans showed the greatest difference between the weed p0pu1ations of the high yielding plots and the low yield- ing ones. Only the high yielding plots of kidney beans showed fairly low weed p0pu1ation, (1.5 per square yard). Even the high yielding navy beans were very weedy, with almost 8 weeds per square yard. The high and low yield- ing cranberry bean plots had the least difference in weed p0pu1ations and in bean plant numbers. Yet these plots had the greatest variance in yield: 31.4 bushels per acre between the highest yielding plot and the lowest. Effect of weed and bean plant populations on yiglg: Figure 3 shows the effects of bean plant p0pu1a- tion and total weed p0pu1ation on yield. The yield line was derived by totaling the average bushels per acre yield of each treatment, on each type of bean and dividing by three. The bean plant line is derived by totaling the average number of bean plants present per plot at harvest time for each treatment, on each type of bean and dividing by nine. The total weed line was derived in the same way; all weeds were totaled and divided by nine. The bean plant line shows little relationship to yield. The total weed line shows an inverse relation- ship in all cases. When the separate types of weeds were - ‘ d smazuaswnvcdnu.s\na\m coaznoz I eaoasaupmoa -easeaauensn-.m\na\m 89mm 7 I l easena-ecun-.a\na\m uses 7 w m R" m paafispm-e§n-.w\£\m 3mm r m s. .m 1 \ - A \\\ m camsoboounaan.8\n.n\o can I M II n 1 .A ommaopooufia-£\£\m 8mm .. m //Jm 1 s N. \ owmpo>oouaaau.w\na\m 09mm 1 A \x P 1 a \ w ommnopooufiaaa.m\na\m conoam I M W. 1 “u III. “M T. m omsso>oouaanmu.m\na\1 <oouaasha.w\nd\m mmzm I I. ///l\\ 1 I. com hampom I Ila 1 v axoono 7 I 1 mezmame¢mr9 I l ‘40 - 35 b 30 P 25 b 20 - l5 IO 5 0 three types of beans compared to the average number of been plants and total weeds present at harvest. Figure 3. The average yield of eacn treatment for all 47 compared to yield the inverse relationship held in all cases for broadleaved weeds. Grassy weeds held the in- verse relationship in all cases save two; the rotary hoe and EPTC 3 pounds-per-acre-band—granular. The range of grassy weed numbers was much greater. This would seem to mean that a single grassy weed did not effect yield as much as a single broadleaved one; so a higher infesta— tion of grassy weeds would be needed to have the same effect on yield that a lower infestation of broadleaved weeds would have. Nut grass did not show the clear inverse rela— tionship to yield that the other types had. Under differ— ent climatic conditions the results might be different. Effectiveness of Chemical and Cultural Treatments Chemical and cultural treatments: The check yielded and ranked relatively high in all cases, (tables 2 through 11). It ranked the highest in the navy bean plots where the weed population was the highest. It must be concluded that good early cultivation was one of the best weed control measures used in these trials. Due to its ease of application and the ready availability of equipment, it would seem that its use should still be most strongly recommended. 48 Rotaryghoe: This treatment generally showed fair weed control in the spring but had higher mature weed populations in the fall than the check. In no case did it yield more than the check and in the cranberry bean trials it yielded 28 per cent less. DNBP 3ppoundsgper-acre-full-coverage: DNBP treatment failed to control weeds and in all cases led to lower yields than the check. In both the cranberry and navy bean trials it failed to control grassy weeds and in the kidney beans it failed to control broadleaves. In both the cranberry and the kidney bean trials it was adversely affected by the climatic conditions. CDAA 4 poundstper-acre-full-coverage-and-band- granular: CDAA controlled weeds and gave yields equal to the checks in both the cranberry and kidney bean trials. It failed to control weeds in the navy bean trials. In general it controlled grassy weeds better than broadleaves. Due to the fact that it caused injury to both the cran- berry and navy bean plants in the early stages of growth; it would not seem advisable to increase the application rates. The granular band on the kidney beans gave excel- lent results. .49 Kloben 2_poundstper—acre-full-coverage: Kloben treatment failed to control weeds in any of the trials and led to lower yields than the checks. EPTC 2gpoundseper-acre-full-coverage: This treatment was spotty in its weed control; however, result— ing yields were equal to the checks in two of the three trials. In the cranberry beans the yield was reduced because of a locally heavy infestation of Canadian thistle in one plot. EPTC 3 poundsgper-acre-full-coverage: This treatment had the highest yields in two of the trials and yielded higher than the checks in all three. It showed good general weed control with reduced cultivation. Gen— erally it seemed to control the grassy weeds best. It did not show any selectivity for control of nut grass. CIPC 6gpoundsjper-acre-full-coverage: and band- granular: CIPC treatment did not control any type of weed. It resulted in lower yields than the checks. The granular form did better than the liquid form in the kid- ney trials. EPTCA3gpoundstper-acre-band-granular: This was the highest yielding treatment in the kidney bean 50 trials and gave excellent control of all weed types. In the navy bean trials it failed to control weeds and had a much reduced yield, (table 9). This may have been due to the rain which fell on the same day the treatment was applied, (table 2). The other EPTC treatments did not show this effect; however they were applied a day earlier. In the cranberry bean trial it gave fair control of grassy weeds and nut grass but not of broadleaves, (table 5). The yield was equal to the check. EPTC 3qpoundsfiper—acre—band-liquid: In the cranberry and kidney bean trials this treatment showed some weed control and yielded about the same as the checks. In the navy beans it failed to control weeds and produced a much lower yield. EPTC 3ppoundsipsr—acre-band-liquidjpost-shield- dowfigeneral: This treatment gave spotty weed control but yielded about as much as the checks. Due to its added cost and work it is hard to see why further investigation with it is warranted. Neburon 2 poundsjper-acre—band-granular: This treatment failed to show any weed control and produced much reduced yields in all trials. 51 CIPC, Kloben, and Neburon might be investigated more at increased application rates. All EPTC treatments, except the post—shield, should be further investigated. The CDAA treatments should be tested further, too. The granular bands look the most interesting when considered for work of applying, amount of chemical needed, cost of equipment for application and weed control. SUEHARY Twelve different chemical and cultural weed control treatments were applied to three types of field beans. Kloben, Neburon, CIPC and DNBP failed to control weeds with the application rates used. They produced lower yields than the checks. The rotary hoe and post emergence shield treatments gave intermediate results. CDAA and EPTC treatments generally gave fair weed control with yields equal to the checks. CDAA showed some bean plant injury, but plants recovered. No injury was noted from treatments with EPTC. The untreated plots received three cultivations. They gave good results and were the JOSt economical. Io direct differences were observed as the re- sult of the use of the different types of beans. Effects of bean plant competition on weed p0pu1ations in the row were evaluated. Under weather conditions favorable to both beans and weeds, competition from the bean plants reduced weed populations about 50 per cent. Hut grass was less competitive than other weeds under the climatic conditions encountered. Comparisons of high and low yielding plots 52 53 showed bean plant, broadleaved weed and grassy weed popu- lations to be factors in yield. Yield and total weed population showed an in- verse relationship. The more weeds, the less yield. This inverse relationship held true for all treatments. The number of replications should be increased so as to make statistical analysis more feasible. lO. BIBLIOGRAPHY Antognini, J., M. A. Klaich, J. D. Wright, E. Curtis & G. F. Probandt. Control of Johnson grass and nut grass with eptc. Southern Weed Control Conference Proceedings, p. 192, Jan., 1959. Antognini, J., M. A. Klaich, J. D. Wright, R. Curtis & G. F. Probandt. Implements for the incorporation eptc into soil. Southern Weed Control Conference Proceedings, p. 192, Jan., 1950. Collins, W. B., Weed control in vegetables. Canadian National Weed Committee, Eastern Section, p. 59, 1957. Dabbs, D. H. & D. E. Forsberg. Pre—emergence weed— ing of 10 vegetables. North Central Weed Control Conference Proceedings, p. 131, Dec., 1957. Dawson, J. H. & V. F. Bruns. Pre-emergence chemical control of annual weeds in field beans. Western Weed Control Conference Proceedings, p. 39, March, 1959. . Furtick, W. R. Research findings with weed killers in field crops. Proceedings Sixth Annual Oregon Weed Conference, pp. 41-44, Nov., 1957. Hemphill, D. D. Chemical Weed Control in Green Beans. North Central Weed Control Conference Research Report, p. 146, 1955. Marshall, E. R., G. Bayer & D. Robinson. Tests with new materials for pre-emergence weed control in red kidney beans. Northeastern Weed Control Conference Proceedings 10: pp. 143-146, 1956. Noll, C. J. & M. L. Odland. Chemical weeding of lima beans. Northeastern Weed Control Conference Proceedings 8: pp. 183-185, 1954. N011, C. J. Progress report on chemical weeding of beets and lima beans. Northeastern Weed Control Conference Proceedings 11: pp. 58—41, 1956. 54 ll. 12. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 55 Noll, C. J. & M. L. Odland. Weed control in lima beans with various herbicides. Northeastern Weed Control Conference Proceedings 9: pp. 185-186, 1955. Rahn, E. M. A comparison of several herbicides for lima bean weed control, under high and low soil moist- ure levels. Northeastern Weed Control Conference Proceedings 10: pp. 137—142, 1956. Sailak, W. J. Studies with eptc for nutgrass con- trol. Northeastern Weed Control Conference Progress Report, pp. 196—199. Sexsmith, J. J. Effect of pre-seeding applications of chemicals for green foxtail control in specialty crops. North Central Weed Control Conference Pro- ceedings, p. 61, 1957. Singletary, C. C. and J. W. Herron. Pre-emergence herbicide treatments on lima beans, snap beans and sweet corn. North Central Weed Control Conference Research Report, p. 147, 1955. Staniforth, D. W. and C. R. Weber. Effects of annual weeds on the growth and yield of soybeans. Agronomy Journal, Vol. 48: pp. 467-471, 1956. Szabo, S. S. and W. L. Gould. Preéemergence treat- ments on vegetable crops. Western Weed Control Con- ference, p. 52, 1959. Wilson, J. D. and H. E. Bruner. Post—emergence con- trol of weeds in snap beans using a shield boom. North Central Weed Control Conference Proceedings Annual Meeting 7: pp. 58-59, 1950. '2' ...... ”'TITIWLHMWfiiflflflfflflWiLUW’z‘F